Collective Teacher Efficacy and Culturally Responsive Teaching Efficacy of Inservice Special Education Teachers in the United States

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to obtain an understanding of inservice special education teachers’ collective teacher efficacy (CTE), culturally responsive teaching (CRT) self-efficacy, and outcome expectancy beliefs, as well as to examine the relationship among these efficacy beliefs. By using the validity and reliability of a self-made instrument, 344 teachers from three urban school districts completed responses. Participants showed somewhat less confidence in their schools’ efficacy for serving exceptional learners from diverse backgrounds. There were also significant relationships among CTE, CRT self-efficacy, and outcome expectancy, though the correlations were weak. Further discussion and implications will be provided.

Keywords

collective teacher efficacy culturally responsive teaching culturally and linguistic diversity special education

Introduction

Culturally responsive teaching (CRT) practices are central to improving educational outcomes for students from nondominant sociocultural and linguistic communities (Gay, 2002, 2010). For students in this group who have disabilities, their special education services must equally be designed to meet their disability-related educational needs in ways that are responsive to their sociocultural and linguistic characteristics, including family and community contexts (Cloud, 1993; García & Malkin, 1993; García & Ortiz, 2013). However, the majority of teachers who work with students with disabilities from culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) communities receive limited preparation on effective instruction for this population, leading teachers to question their ability to improve learning for these students (Cartledge & Kourea, 2008; Muller, Singer, & Carranza, 2006; Paneque & Barbetta, 2006). When special education teachers do not feel well prepared to provide culturally/linguistically responsive instruction (e.g., Muller et al., 2006), they may be more likely to select instructional strategies based on students’ disability-related needs with little consideration of students’ sociocultural and/or linguistic backgrounds (Artiles, Trent, & Palmer, 2004; Bank, Obiakor, & Algozzine, 2013; Garcia & Ortiz, 2008, 2013). This low teaching efficacy (personal teaching efficacy or self-efficacy, as well as outcome expectancy or teaching efficacy) is a concern because teachers with low efficacy are likely to be reluctant to try different ways to respond to unique needs for students with special needs (Accardo, Finnegan, Gulkus, & Papay, 2017; Chu, 2011; Chu & García, 2014; Hartmann, 2012; Woodcock & Vialle, 2010). In general, international research has documented that students taught by teachers with high efficacy make significantly more progress than students taught by teachers with low efficacy (e.g., Chu, 2013; Darling-Hammond & Lieberman, 2012; Ho & Hau, 2004; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007). Although such research in special education is scant at the international level, Woodcock and Vialle (2010) noted comparable trends among Australian preservice teachers’ beliefs related to students with learning disabilities.

Similarly in the United States, there is little research on teaching efficacy of special education teachers and even less on those who serve CLD exceptional learners. Both individual and collective teaching efficacy are relevant for special educators, but may be nuanced differently when compared with general educators due to differences in their respective teaching roles and responsibilities, settings, and preparation (Chu, 2013; Chu & García, 2014). Teaching self-efficacy reflects a teacher’s perception of her or his own ability to successfully execute the actions necessary to produce the outcome (e.g., “When the grades of my students improve, it is usually because I found more effective teaching approaches”), whereas outcome expectancy involves a teacher’s estimate that a given action will lead to a specific outcome (e.g., “The influences of a student’s home experiences can be overcome by good teaching”; Ashton & Webb, 1986; Gibson & Dembo, 1984). Recognizing that people do not operate alone, but in a dynamic and interactive social system (Bandura, 1993), Bandura (1997, 2000) also proposed the construct of collective teacher efficacy (CTE) to reflect judgments people make about their group’s level of competency.

In spite of the rapid and continuing rise in student diversity in U.S. public schools across the nation, the majority of CLD students are still concentrated in urban areas. In this study, the term urban is used interchangeably with CLD because the majority of CLD students are concentrated in large and inner city schools that are often high poverty (Foote, 2005). Urban schools are characterized as those serving students in large central cities, who represent diverse ethnic/cultural identities, tend to be from low-income families/communities, may have limited proficiency in English, and who exhibit low academic performance (Foote, 2005; Jacob, 2007). Teacher attrition is also challenging within urban school settings which contributes to a student achievement gap, placing an imperative to adequately prepare all teachers, including special educators, to meet the students’ diverse learning needs (Bank et al., 2013; Borman & Dowling, 2008; Darling-Hammond, 2003). Therefore, research is urgently needed on individual and collective teaching efficacy in general, and in particular, for teachers who serve students with disabilities from CLD backgrounds. Because students with disabilities are increasingly being served in inclusive settings (i.e., general education classrooms), such research could also serve to explicate the interrelationships between CTE, teaching efficacy, and educational outcomes for diverse learners. The interrelationships between CRT self-efficacy, outcome expectancy, and CTE among special education teachers who serve this student population were the focus of research we present in this article.

Theoretical Framework

Teaching Efficacy

The theoretical and empirical underpinnings of teacher efficacy have been derived from Bandura’s (1977) theory of self-efficacy. According to Bandura (1977), outcome expectancy involves a person’s estimate that a given behavior will lead to a particular outcome, whereas self-efficacy involves an evaluation of one’s own ability to successfully execute the behavior to produce the outcome. Bandura (1977, 1993) also postulated that four sources of information contribute to the development of teacher efficacy beliefs: master experiences, various experiences, social persuasion, and physiological emotional arousal (Milner, 2002; Milner & Woolfolk, 2003). From this perspective, researchers (Lamorey & Wilcox, 2005; Milner, 2002; Milner & Woolfolk, 2003) further proposed that teachers’ efficacy (i.e., high or low) is shaped by (a) vicarious observations of others’ failure or success, (b) their own past failures or positive experiences, (c) negative or positive feedback, and (d) individual states (e.g., depression or optimism).

The most popular teacher efficacy instrument to date, developed by Gibson and Dembo (1984), was based on two scales from a Rand study (Armor et al., 1976) in which teacher self-efficacy was measured by two items: (a) “When it comes right down to it, a teacher really can’t do much because most of a student’s motivation and performance depends on his or her home environment”; and (b) “If I try really hard, I can get through to even the most difficult or unmotivated students.” The first item was hypothesized to assess teachers’ outcome expectancy; the second item was hypothesized to reflect their teaching self-efficacy (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). In other words, two dimensions of teaching efficacy have been defined (e.g., Ashton & Webb, 1986; Gibson & Dembo, 1984): teacher efficacy (outcome expectancy/efficacy) and personal teaching efficacy (self-efficacy).

CRT efficacy

CRT recognizes the centrality of students’ prior knowledge, experiences, and personal stories in teaching and learning (Cartledge & Kourea, 2008; Gay, 2010). Teachers must reorganize their classrooms, expanding them in ways that take into account students’ cultural backgrounds, language, learning styles, values, and the knowledge they acquire at home and within the community (Chu & García, 2014; Gay, 2002; Ladson-Billings, 1994a; Villegas & Lucas, 2002). The literature on CRT recognizes teacher efficacy as one of the attributes of successful teachers of CLD students (Ford, Stuart, & Vakil, 2014; Gay, 2010; Ladson-Billings, 1994b; Siwatu, 2011). In schools or classrooms characterized by student diversity (in terms of ability, race/ethnicity, social class, culture, and language), CRT techniques have been posited to be a vital component of the teaching efficacy construct (Chu & García, 2014; Oyerinde, 2008; Siwatu, 2007). Although not extensive, research on CRT efficacy suggests that efficacious teachers view CRT as best practice to promote their students’ learning. These studies (e.g., Paneque & Barbetta, 2006) further reveal the interface between teacher efficacy and CRT: Culturally Responsive Teaching Self-Efficacy (CRTSE) has been defined as teachers’ perceptions of their ability to execute specific teaching practices associated with CRT, and CRT outcome efficacy (CRTOE) as teachers’ perceptions that engaging in CRT practices will have positive classroom and student outcomes (Siwatu, 2007). In essence, both aspects of teaching efficacy involve teachers’ attributions about factors which may influence students’ success or failure (Ashton & Webb, 1986; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). Furthermore, teachers with high self-efficacy are more likely to believe that they are able to use students’ cultural backgrounds to help make learning meaningful, whereas teachers with low self-efficacy may feel less confident about their ability to help such students feel like valued members of the classroom (Siwatu, 2007; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). Similarly, teachers with high outcome efficacy are more likely to believe that students will be successful when instruction is adapted to meet their needs, whereas teachers with low outcome efficacy may not acknowledge the likelihood that student–teacher misunderstanding decreases when their students’ cultural background is understood (Chu & García, 2014; Guyton & Wesche, 2005; Oyerinde, 2008; Tournaki & Podell, 2005; Tucker et al., 2005).

CRT efficacy in special education

CRT principles are equally relevant for students with disabilities, whose individualized educational plans (Individualized Education Program [IEP]) must reflect educators’ awareness that the ways in which students experience their disability are shaped in part by their sociocultural and linguistic communities. Conceptual frameworks for the development of culturally and linguistically responsive special education services extend existing models of CRT by incorporating considerations related to a student’s disability (e.g., Artiles & Ortiz, 2002; Cloud, 1993, 2002; Ford et al., 2014; García & Malkin, 1993; García & Ortiz, 2013; Hoover, Klingner, Baca, & Patton, 2008). Hoover et al. also proposed that the IEP elements of educational goals, strategies, language of instruction/assessment, assessment procedures, and accommodations should be selected, and defined to best meet the needs of CLD students with disabilities.

Like their general education peers, culturally responsive special educators understand that culturally responsive instruction incorporates ways of teaching and learning that take into account students’ socialization experiences at home, and draws on students’ prior knowledge, experiences, and personal stories to enhance the educational process (Cartledge & Kourea, 2008; García & Malkin, 1993; Gay, 2000). These teachers are skilled at creating an environment that facilitates learning outcomes through the use of instructional materials that promote high interest and motivation, and are relevant to students’ background experiences. In effect, they are skilled in the use of culturally appropriate curricula and materials (Ford et al., 2014; García & Malkin, 1993; Hoover et al., 2008).

Planning services for English learners (ELs) with disabilities also requires special education teachers to understand that the relationship between native language and cognitive development is critical to academic success and English language acquisition (Hoover et al., 2008; Santamaría, Fletcher, & Bos, 2002). Consequently, language and literacy development goals are aligned with the needs ELs or speakers of nonstandard English, and teachers systematically incorporate the students’ native language(s) and scaffolds for learning English as a second language into all instruction, not only language development (Cloud, 2002; Santamaría et al., 2002). Equally, culturally responsive special educators must understand the varying acculturation processes for CLD students different from their own (Turner, 2007). Reflective of this understanding, the student’s IEP would reflect goals and objectives that accommodate the family’s views, goals, and expectations for their child; and educators would establish partnership with CLD families in a culturally and linguistically responsive manner; for example, awareness of family members’ communication styles, levels of acculturation, attitudes toward disability, and acceptance of a child with a disability (García & Ortiz, 2008). Finally, the planning process must address coordination of services across the various programs and associated personnel who are responsible for implementing the IEP (Artiles & Ortiz, 2002; Chu & García, 2014).

Although there is much conceptual literature on CRT and the importance of creating culturally responsive special education programs and services, empirical research regarding CRT efficacy in special education is still in its infancy (Chu, 2013). A recent study (Chu & García, 2014) investigated the influence of contextual variables (i.e., personal characteristics, teaching assignments, and professional preparation) on special education teachers’ teaching self-efficacy (CRTSE) and outcome expectancy (CRTOE) when serving exceptional learners from CLD backgrounds. The results revealed a statistically significant difference in respondents’ perceptions of CRTSE and CRTOE based on their perceived effectiveness of their teacher education programs as well as professional development in preparing them to work with CLD students. CRT efficacy beliefs were influenced by mediating factors, such as teachers’ language status and educational settings.

CTE

To date, very limited research has investigated the CTE of special educators. Specifically, no research has focused on examining the relationship between CRT individual and collective teaching efficacy for this population. Collective efficacy addresses a group’s shared beliefs in its own collective ability to organize and execute courses of action required to produce given levels of attainment (Goddard, 2001; Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy, 2000). These group-shared perceptions reflect a developing organizational attribution or collective efficacy (Bandura, 1997; Goddard et al., 2000; Hoy, Sweetland, & Smith, 2002). Within any organization (in this case, school), perceived collective efficacy represents the shared beliefs of group members concerning “the performance capability of a social system as a whole” (Bandura, 1997, p. 469).

Two key elements have been identified in the formation of CTE: First, the teacher analyzes the teaching task. Second, she or he assesses the competence of the faculty to teach the tasks (Goddard et al., 2000). The outcome is the teacher’s perceptions regarding the ability of the faculty to influence students’ learning outcomes or a judgment about collective efficacy (Bandura, 1997). In other words, CTE refers to an individual teacher’s perceptions of his or her own faculty’s ability to cope successfully with events that challenge the group as a whole.

Although personal and collective efficacies are two different constructs, research in a cross-cultural context tends to agree that both constructs influence each other in a reciprocal way (Chan, 2008; Schechter & Tschannen-Moran, 2006). Organizational agency depends on individual member’s self-regulation, self-reflection, vicarious learning and knowledge as well as human agency: “The assumptions of social cognitive theory about the importance of vicarious learning and self-regulation also apply to organizations, although we must recognize that it is through individuals that organization act” (Goddard et al., 2000, p. 484). Furthermore, the individual’s sources of information affecting teaching efficacy (i.e., master experiences, vicarious experiences, social persuasion, and physiological emotion arousal) are sources of collective efficacy information (Goddard, 2001; Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy, 2004).

CTE has been tied to student achievement and learning (Chong, Klassen, Huan, Wong, & Kates, 2010; Tschannen-Moran & Barr, 2004), cognitive development and functioning of students (Bandura, 1993), and job satisfaction and motivation (Caprara, Barbaraneli, Borgogni, Petitta, & Rubinacci, 2003; Klassen, Usher, & Bong, 2010; Viel-Ruma, Houchins, Jolivette, & Benson, 2010). For instance, the number and classification of students, the responsibilities of the job, and the school climate might affect special education teachers’ confidence levels about the classrooms and schools in which they choose to teach. Teachers’ collective efficacy was affected by their perceptions that the schools set realistic goals, were orderly and serious, and expected academic success (Goddard & Goddard, 2001; Goddard et al., 2004). When the school environment (or school climate) is positive and values CLD students and their parents, teachers tend to respect diverse learning styles, encourage students to succeed, and have high expectations for all students (Darling-Hammond, 2006; Tableman, 2004). A positive school climate influences the perceptions of teacher collective efficacy, enhances all teachers’ performance, promotes higher student morale, and improves students’ learning outcomes (Tableman, 2004; Tschannen-Moran & Barr, 2004).

Studies have found that individual teacher efficacy was higher in schools that were more collectively efficacious (e.g., Goddard & Goddard, 2001). Significant relationships have also been identified between collective efficacy and behaviors of the faculty that lead to increases in student achievement (Bandura, 1993; Goddard, 2001; Tschannen-Moran & Barr, 2004). For instance, in schools where collective efficacy was high, there was an expectation for success that led faculty to put forth the additional effort necessary to ensure that students learn (Goddard et al., 2004; Tschannen-Moran & Barr, 2004). Research on the influence of setting on CTE also suggests that teachers are more likely to feel efficacious with certain students in specific settings (e.g., Chen & Chu, 2014; Goddard & Goddard, 2001; Knoblauch & Hoy, 2008). For example, Knoblauch and Hoy (2008) examined how the student teachers’ sense of efficacy may vary in regard to the school setting—rural, suburban, or urban. The finding showed that urban student teachers exhibited significantly lower perceived collective efficacy.

In the past 10 to 15 years of educational research, CTE has emerged as a variable in school reforms designed to close the opportunity gap for traditionally underachieving students (Chong, Klassen, Huan, Wong, & Kates, 2010; Zambo & Zambo, 2008); namely students from nondominant, sociocultural, and linguistic communities. CTE is considered a powerful construct for determining how schools can improve students’ learning outcomes (Ross, Hogaboam-Gray, & Gray, 2004). Tschannen-Moran and Barr (2004) found no correlation between student socioeconomic status and collective efficacy. They concluded that, regardless of the students’ social class, all schools might be able to foster positive collective efficacy to improve achievement levels of the students. Although students with disabilities also experience lower rates of academic success and school completion (Chu, 2011; Newman et al., 2011), research on the interrelationships between teacher efficacy, CTE, and academic performance for this subgroup remains scant.

CTE and CRT efficacy

A better understanding of the interface between CTE and CRT efficacy is needed if we are to understand how to nurture teachers’ growth and promote student achievement. Teachers with a strong sense of CTE believed that, through effective teaching, they could not only respond to students’ needs in diverse classrooms but also gain the support of students’ families and work collaboratively to overcome disadvantages and negative influences from the community (Caprara, Barbaraneli, Borgoni, & Steca, 2003). The following is a list of correlates of high CTE that are consistent with the goals of CRT:

Teachers are more persistent in their efforts, they play with different teaching strategies, they share responsibilities for student achievement, and temporary setbacks or failures do not discourage them (Bandura, 1997; Goddard et al., 2000).

Teachers create meaningful learning environments that respond to students’ backgrounds (Knoblauch & Hoy, 2008; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001).

Teachers are more likely to engage in instructional experimentation, are willing to try a variety of materials/approaches, seek to find better ways of teaching, and implement progressive and innovative methods, levels of organization, planning, and fairness (Chen & Chu, 2014; Goddard et al., 2000).

Teachers are more likely to hold high expectations for student performance, and they believe all students can learn (Gibson & Dembo, 1984; Goddard et al., 2000).

Teachers believe that the faculty need more professional training to work with difficult students, rather than give up on them (Ross et al., 2004; Zambo & Zambo, 2008).

Teachers are more willing to engage in trusting and collaborative relationships with their colleagues (Loera et al., 2013).

CTE related to CLD students with disabilities

With the push toward inclusion over the past 25 years, the education of students with disabilities has increasingly become the collective responsibility of the faculty (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002; Hastings & Oakford, 2003; Urton, Wilbert, & Hennemann, 2014). That is, special education teachers who serve exceptional learners in inclusive classrooms must work closely with their general education colleagues to plan and deliver special education services in general education settings. In effect, personal and collective teaching efficacies become integrally intertwined for both groups because the learning outcomes of these students are a collaborative effort between two (or more) groups of educators. Support from colleagues and administrators (or lack thereof) may influence the perceptions of teachers’ collective efficacy regarding their ability to bring about successful learning outcomes for students with disabilities (Goddard et al., 2000; Viel-Ruma et al., 2010). It is likely that CTE contributes to differences between schools in achieving their goals to educate all students (Goddard et al., 2000; Tschannen-Moran & Barr, 2004). It may also contribute to differences between teachers’ self-efficacy and outcome expectancy with regard to serving CLD students with disabilities in inclusive settings. In light of the collaboration involved in the provision of inclusive special education services, it is important to ascertain the extent to which CTE is likely to moderate individual teachers’ self-efficacy and outcome expectancy. To date, these interrelationships remain relatively unexplored.

Aims and Research Questions

Four distinct needs for research guided the development of this study: First, given persistent patterns of disproportionate representation of CLD students in special education as well as inadequate special education services and outcomes for students with disabilities, it is important to understand the relationship between teachers’ personal and collective efficacy. and their educational success with CLD students with disabilities. Moreover, this scholarship (and instruments used to measure these constructs) must be grounded in principles of CRT and special education.

Second, the inclusion of students with disabilities in general education settings has been a major focus in recent years, and faculty across disciplines have opportunities to engage in collaborative problem solving to identify educational needs of these students. The collective ability of faculty is viewed as capable of having positive impact on students’ learning outcomes, which might lead to the need for fewer referrals for special education services and more effective inclusive practices for students with disabilities. Third, extant research across countries has not specifically focused on inservice special education teachers’ CTE nor has it investigated the influence of teacher efficacy on teaching students with disabilities from CLD backgrounds (Paneque & Barbetta, 2006).

Finally, although the role of individual efficacy beliefs in teacher perception formation and subsequent teaching practices has been the focus of much research (e.g., Lamorey & Wilcox, 2005), little is known about the relationship among teacher efficacy, CTE, and CRT. The assumptions of interface between CTE and CRT are particularly relevant to understanding improvement in students’ learning outcomes in general and special education. In addition, research has revealed that teachers in urban settings may garner a low sense of efficacy as a result of challenges faced in such environments (Bank et al., 2013; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2007). As the majority of CLD students are educated in urban schools (Jacob, 2007), this study extends the existing literature on CTE by examining efficacy beliefs of urban special education teachers, a population that has not yet been investigated.

In this article, we present selected findings from a larger study of teaching efficacy among inservice special education teachers (Chu, 2010). The original research investigated (a) the relationship between special education teachers’ CTE beliefs and CRT efficacy for teaching CLD students, and (b) the influences of personal and professional background variables on participating teacher’s CRT efficacy beliefs. Findings related to the influence of selected personal and professional variables on special educators’ CRT efficacy for serving exceptional CLD students were reported in Chu and García (2014). The focus of this article is on the relationships between personal and CTE, as reflected in the following research questions:

Research Question 1: What are inservice special education teachers’ CTE, CRTSE, and outcome expectancy beliefs?

Research Question 2: What are the relationships between inservice teachers’ CTE, self-efficacy, and outcome expectancy?

Method

Participants and Settings

Participants (N = 344) were inservice special education teachers who taught students with disabilities from CLD backgrounds from pre-K to 12th grade. They were recruited from three of the 10 largest urban districts in Texas; urban districts were purposefully selected because they serve the largest enrollments of CLD students in general and special education. Participants were predominantly female (n = 271; 78.8%) and Caucasian (n = 206; 60%). Of the 344 respondents, 119 (35%) indicated that they spoke a language other than English. The number of years of teaching experience ranged from less than 1 year to more than 15 years. Just more than one half of participants (n = 179; 52%) taught in inclusive settings, and the majority (n = 252; 73%) reported teaching students with mild/moderate disabilities. The majority of participants (n = 320; 93%) held special education teaching certifications; the rest were certified in deaf education, or were waiting to take the special education certification test. In terms of specialized preparation to teach ELs, 68 (20%) teachers held an endorsement in teaching English as second language, and 10 (3%) teachers were certified in bilingual education. Finally, 261 (76%) participants reported that they had attended professional development trainings focused on CLD students, while the other 83 (24%) reported that they had not (a detailed profile may be found in Chu & García, 2014).

Instrumentation

In the absence of an available instrument to investigate pre-K through Grade 12 inservice special education teachers’ perceptions of CTE and CRT practices, a survey questionnaire was developed for this study by adapting three existing measures of teacher efficacy designed for research on general educators: Collective Teacher Efficacy scale (Goddard et al., 2000), Culturally Responsive Teaching Self-Efficacy Scale (CRTSS; Siwatu, 2007), and Culturally Responsive Outcome Expectancy (CRTOE) scale (Siwatu, 2007; permission to adapt was sought from the authors). New items were added, and others were adapted to better represent the roles and responsibilities of special education teachers, disability, and CRT. The survey questionnaire consists of four sections:

Background Information: This section elicited demographic information about respondents, including current teaching assignments, characteristics of students, years of teaching experience, educational level, teaching certifications held, perceived effectiveness of professional development addressing diversity, and prior teacher training experiences.

CTE: This 12-item scale (see Table 1) was designed to understand special education teachers’ perceptions about their school’s orientation to school and community issues. This measure was based on Goddard et al.’s (2000) two dimensions: general competence (seven items; for example, “Teachers in my school are confident they can work with students with disabilities from CLD backgrounds”) and task analysis (five items; for example, “Teachers in my school believe that the lack of appropriate materials makes teaching difficult for students with disabilities from CLD backgrounds”). All participants were asked to rate each item on a 5-point, Likert-type scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree. Higher ratings reflect higher level of collective efficacy.

CRTSE: Modeled after Siwatu’s (2007) 40-item scale, the goal of this 20-item CRTSE scale was to understand respondents’ efficacy related to teaching students with disabilities from CLD backgrounds (e.g., “I am able to design appropriate instruction that is matched to English language learners’ language proficiency and special needs”). Participants were asked to rate each item on a 5-point, Likert-type scale ranging from (1) definitely no to (5) definitely yes. Higher ratings on the CRTSE scale are indicative of greater confidence among these respondents in their ability to engage in CRT practices. See Chu and Garcia (2014) for a full description.

CRTOE. Adapted from Siwatu’s 26-item Outcome Expectancy scale, the purpose of the 12-item CRTOE scale in this study was to understand how the beliefs of teachers about CRT practices are related to student achievement/performance (e.g., “Using prior knowledge and culturally relevant examples motivates students’ learning”). Participants were asked to rate each item on a 5-point, Likert-type scale ranging from (1) very uncertain to (5) absolutely certain. Higher ratings are taken to be indicative that respondents are more confident that CRT leads to positive learning outcomes for students. See Authors (2014) for a full description.

Table 1.

Mean Scores on the Collective Teaching Efficacy Scale for Inservice Special Educators (n = 344)..

Items	M	SD	1^an (%)	2^an (%)	3^an (%)	4^an (%)	5^an (%)
1. Teachers in my school are confident that they can work with students with disabilities from CLD backgrounds. (GC)	3.45	1.02	14 (4.1)	55 (16.0)	77 (22.4)	159 (46.2)	39 (11.3)
2. Teachers in my school are confident they will be able to motivate every student, including students with disabilities from CLD backgrounds. (GC)	3.32	1.03	15 (4.4)	70 (20.3)	80 (23.3)	148 (43.0)	31 (9.0)
3. Teachers in my school believe every child here can learn, including students with disabilities from CLD backgrounds. (TA)	3.59	1.08	14 (4.1)	52 (15.1)	57 (16.6)	158 (45.9)	63 (18.3)
4. Teachers in my school work together to produce meaningful learning for students with disabilities from CLD backgrounds. (GC)	3.59	1.02	11 (3.2)	44 (12.8)	80 (23.3)	148 (43.0)	61 (17.7)
5. Teachers in my school are not skilled in culturally and linguistically responsive teaching methods.^b (GC)	2.62 3.38	1.03 1.03	41 (11.9) 16 (4.7)	133 (38.7) 53 (15.4)	101 (29.4) 101 (29.4)	53 (15.4) 133 (38.7)	16 (4.7) 41 (11.9)
6. Teachers in my school are confident about increasing the levels of parental involvement, including involvement of parents of students with disabilities from CLD backgrounds. (GC)	3.42	1.00	10 (2.9)	60 (17.4)	89 (25.9)	146 (42.4)	39 (11.3)
7. Teachers in my school believe that the lack of appropriate materials makes teaching difficult for students with disabilities from CLD backgrounds. (TA)	3.24	1.09	24 (7.0)	67 (19.5)	88 (25.6)	133 (38.7)	32 (9.3)
8. Teachers in my school believe that their students’ home life provides many learning advantages, including students with disabilities from CLD backgrounds. (TA)	3.47	1.06	14 (4.1)	54 (15.7)	87 (25.3)	134 (39.0)	55 (16.0)
9. Teachers in my school believe that their students with disabilities from CLD backgrounds are not motivated to learn.^a (TA)	2.50 3.50	1.13 1.13	74 (21.5) 16 (4.7)	110 (32.0) 54 (15.7)	90 (26.2) 90 (26.2)	54 (15.7) 110 (32.0)	16 (4.7) 74 (21.5)
10. Teachers in this school do not have the skills to deal with disciplinary problems of students with disabilities from CLD backgrounds.^a (GC)	2.67 3.33	1.15 1.15	54 (15.7) 22 (6.4)	120 (34.9) 70 (20.3)	78 (22.7) 78 (22.7)	70 (20.3) 120 (34.9)	22 (6.4) 54 (15.7)
11. Teachers in my school believe that home and community environments support learning of students with disabilities from CLD backgrounds at this school. (TA)	3.49	1.03	12 (3.5)	52 (15.1)	89 (25.9)	139 (40.4)	52 (15.1)
12. Teachers in my school need more training to be able to create a barrier-free environment that facilitates learning for students with disabilities from CLD backgrounds. (GC)	3.64	0.96	7 (2.0)	37 (10.8)	89 (25.9)	152 (44.2)	59 (17.2)

Note. CLD = culturally and linguistically diverse; GC = general competence; TA = task analysis.

Ratings: 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neutral; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree.

The second row of data represents results of reverse scoring.

Although three sections of the survey (CTE, CRTSE, and CRTOE) were adapted from instruments used in previous studies, the questionnaire used for this study was substantively different (as explained above); hence, it was necessary to establish reliability and validity of the modified components. A pilot study was conducted prior to the implementation of the survey instrument to determine the appropriateness of these modified instruments before their use in the research (see Chu, 2013). Cronbach’s alpha was employed to determine the internal consistency reliability of the survey. The alpha coefficients for each section were .90 (CTE scale), .93 (CRTSE scale), and .84 (CRTOE scale; Chu, 2010).

Procedure

After institutional review board (IRB) and district approvals were received, all prospective participants were notified via e-mail inviting them to participate in the study. This e-mail provided a description of the study, described their rights as a participant, and included an embedded Internet link to the survey questionnaire. Prospective participants were told that participation was voluntary, and that their consent was implied if they decided to complete the survey. The first follow-up e-mail was sent 2 weeks from the initial mail-out date, and a second follow-up e-mail was sent a week later to remind potential participants that they had 1 more week to respond. Data collection was completed within 1 month.

Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics, including frequencies, means, and standard deviations, were employed to generate a profile of participants’ demographic information from the background information questionnaire, and their ratings for items on the three scales (CTE, CRTSE, and CRTOE). Bivariate analyses (e.g., correlation) were used to inspect the relationship between CTE and CRT efficacy.

Results

Respondents’ Teaching Efficacy Profiles

CTE

Item-specific means and standard deviations for the participants’ responses on the CTE scale are presented in Table 1. Participants’ original scores ranged from 2.62 to 3.64. Item means clustered around the midpoint (3.25) of a 1-5 rating scale, and standard deviations ranged from 0.96 to 1.15. Because Items 5, 9, and 10 were negatively worded (e.g., “Teachers in my school are not skilled in culturally and linguistically responsive teaching methods”), low scores for these items reflect higher CTE ratings. Responses for these items were reverse scored, and are included in Table 1 to allow for comparisons across all items within the CTE scale. Overall, the group means for Items 3, 4, and 12 were the highest (3.59, 3.59, and 3.64, respectively), and they were the only items where 60% or more of participants assigned a rating of 4 or 5 (agree or strongly agree). The most strongly supported item was Item 12, suggesting that respondents agreed that teachers at their schools need more training to better facilitate the learning for exceptional learners from CLD backgrounds. For all items in the dimension of group competence, the percentage of participants who were neutral ranged from 16.6 (Item 3) to 29.4 (Item 5), which means that approximately one of three to four teachers was unsure if the items accurately represented their schools’ preparedness to serve CLD students with disabilities. However, the mean ratings of some items (Items 1, 2, 4, and 6) were above 3, revealing that participants viewed the teachers at their schools as being confident in having the teaching skills, methods, and experience to work with CLD students with disabilities.

As for the dimension of task analysis, the means of Items 3, 7, 8, 9, and 11 being above 3 showed that respondents tended to agree that the availability of instructional materials, students’ abilities/motivation, and home/community resources in the schools were related to students’ learning, and it also shows that they agreed on how these factors influence teaching. In general, the means of these items did not exceed 4 on the 1-5 rating scale, and about 25% of respondents selected 3 (neutral) across the board on the 5-point rating scale. Such results might show somewhat less confidence in their schools’ efficacy for serving CLD students with disabilities, and that they were specifically uncertain about the opportunities and materials offered in the community and school to promote students’ learning.

CRTSE

Full results for the CRTSE scale, including scale items, were published in Chu and García (2014); hence, they are summarized here. Participants’ responses on the CRTSE scale represent their level of agreement on a 5-point scale (1 = definitely no; 5 = definitely yes) on items related to CRT for CLD students with disabilities. Mean scores ranged from 3.65 to 4.62, with the majority of item means clustered above 4, with standard deviations ranging from 0.64 to 1.15. The results revealed that inservice special education teachers’ highest rating related to their perceived ability to create a caring, supportive, and warm learning environment for their exceptional students from CLD backgrounds (M = 4.62; SD = 0.58). Also high were mean scores related to their perceived ability to use a variety of teaching methods to assist students in learning the content (M = 4.51; SD = 0.64), and to help students develop positive interactions with each other (M = 4.51; SD = 0.61). The lowest mean rating was related to critically examining the curriculum to determine whether it appropriately represents CLD groups (M = 3.65; SD = 1.07), suggesting that respondents were unsure about their ability to implement this practice. In general, responding teachers rated themselves as being able to utilize some CRT practices to meet CLD students’ needs, although they appeared more confident with certain skills than others (i.e., comparatively low ratings in the areas of supporting students’ native language, identifying the bias of standardized tests, and implementing interventions that minimize the effects of a cultural mismatch between home and school).

CRTOE

Full results for the CRTOE scale were also published in Authors (2014); thus, findings are summarized below. The CRTOE measured the extent to which respondents viewed CRT practices to be associated with higher student learning outcomes for CLD students with disabilities (1 = very uncertain; 5 = absolutely certain). Higher mean scores are associated with higher levels of outcome expectancy. In this study, responding teachers’ mean scores ranged from 3.74 to 4.69. With one exception (“Encouraging the use of the native language for students with special needs will help to maintain students’ cultural identity”; M = 3.74; SD = 1.07), item means clustered at or above 4 of the 5-point rating scale, with standard deviations ranging from 0.62 to 1.07. The item related to utilizing a variety of teaching approaches as helpful for students’ learning processes received the highest mean rating (M = 4.69; SD = 0.62). Other items with comparable scores included the following: “Understanding different communication styles reduces misunderstandings between teachers, students and their families” (M = 4.65; SD = 0.64), and “A variety of assessment strategies should be used to gain a complete picture of what students with disabilities from diverse backgrounds have learned” (M = 4.61; SD = 0.68). In general, the results revealed that these participants held high levels of certainty regarding the associations between CRT practices and students’ learning outcomes.

Relationship Between CTE and CRT Scores

Pearson’s Product–Moment Correlation Coefficient analyses were used to assess the relationship between three scales (CTE, CRTSE, and CRTOE). The results showed that there was a statistically significant difference between CTE and CRTSE scales, but the relationship was weak (r = .26, p < .01). The results also showed that the relationship between CTE and CRTOE scales was significant (r = .20, p < .01). Moreover, the results suggest a weak positive association between inservice special education teachers’ CTE and CRT outcome expectancy.

Discussion

Although researchers (e.g., Siwatu, 2007) have suggested an interface between teacher efficacy and CRT, this topic has involved predominantly general education participants and preservice teachers (Chu, 2010). Specifically, there is no literature regarding whether CTE beliefs may affect inservice special education teachers’ CRT efficacy beliefs. Previous studies (e.g., Bandura, 2000; Chan, 2008; Schechter & Tschannen-Moran, 2006) have demonstrated the relationships between self-efficacy, outcome expectancy, and CTE for general educators. In addition to considering teacher efficacy, this study added two components: CRT and disability. The preliminary results of this study with 344 special education teachers as its participants show the following:

Increases in special education teachers’ ratings of the school’s ability to provide adequate service for CLD students with disabilities were associated with increases in their perceptions of their ability to provide CRT instruction, and

their perceptions on the connection between CRT practices and students’ learning outcomes, though these correlations were low (r = .26 and .20, respectively).

Perspectives of Special Education Teachers’ CTE

A greater number of students with disabilities are currently educated in general education classrooms. All members of the school faculty should be responsible for providing quality services for students with disabilities, not just special education teachers. CTE becomes a vital factor because it considers whether teachers in the school perceive that all members of the faculty are able to serve all the students (Tschannen-Moran & Barr, 2004; Viel-Ruma et al., 2010). Similar to those found in the previous literature (Lamorey & Wilcox, 2005), the findings suggested that participants’ CTE has been shaped by four sources of information as proposed by Bandura (1977, 1993). In the first dimension of CTE (i.e., general competence), participants in this study tended to be confident that members of their school faculty have the skills to work with CLD students with disabilities (the mean scores of the items were above 3). However, results also revealed that participating teachers were unsure whether members of the school faculty were well prepared to serve this population, especially with regard to Item 12, in which participants clearly indicated that their school faculty needed more training. According to Bandura’s four sources of information, verbal persuasion stems from activities such as professional development workshops and feedback from supervisors, both of which have a positive influence by giving teachers information about teaching tasks and increasing their efficacy. In an inclusive setting, not all school faculty members receive professional training on disability and diversity (Santamaría et al., 2002). The above findings remind us that having teachers with high CTE is not sufficient, and that all school faculty members should receive continuous professional training to better serve CLD students with disabilities.

Although this study showed that participants had high CTE correlated with the goals of CRT (e.g., considering the importance of home/community support), the results also found that these teachers were not completely certain whether their school faculty members would be on board with creating a meaningful learning environment and providing appropriate materials that correspond to the students’ backgrounds. At the same time, the participating teachers were confident about their CRT practices (mean score was above 3.5). Due to differences in job responsibilities, these special education teachers were certain about their abilities to do their job well, but were uncertain whether other members of the faculty could handle such challenges each day. Because this study did not examine the perspectives of general education teachers, we are cautious in interpreting this inconclusive finding on teaching tasks (abilities and motivation of students, community resources, etc.) related to serving exceptional learners from CLD backgrounds.

Due to unequal numbers of participants by grade level (pre-K to K, first–fifth grade, sixth–eighth grade, and ninth–12th grade), we did not analyze differences in levels of CTE based on teacher grade level. Group mean scores for CTE were similar across the four groups (ranging from 3.2-3.3). Future research is needed to examine the potential interaction between CTE and grade levels taught to investigate whether differences in special educators’ teaching assignments and roles influence this relationship.

Relationship Between Individual and CTE

Previous studies (e.g., Ross et al., 2004) focused on the relationship between CTE beliefs and students’ achievements. Researchers (Viel-Ruma et al., 2010; Zambo & Zambo, 2008) also proposed sense of CTE, which has been considered a significant factor for understanding individual teacher efficacy, but there were no empirical studies focusing on the relationship between CTE and individual teacher efficacy for engaging in CRT practices. The current study specifically focused on how the CTE factor predicted both CRTSE and CRTOE beliefs.

The results revealed that there was a statistically significant relationship between CTE and CRTSE in addition to that between CTE and CRTOE (p < .01). The findings also supported the hypothesis that inservice special education teachers’ CTE and CRTSE and their CRTOE beliefs would be positively correlated (r = .26; r = .20), but the associations were weak. The weak associations may reflect within-group diversity among special education teachers insofar as some special education teachers taught students in inclusive settings, whereas some were in separate classrooms. In other words, that the associations between CTE and CRT efficacy beliefs were weak may mean that the degree of collaboration with general education teachers would vary across different types of settings.

In the current study, 179 respondents taught in inclusive settings, whereas 146 participants taught in noninclusive classrooms. The samples in each setting were considered balanced, which may have resulted in the weak association. Moreover, not all special education teachers may have similar CTE beliefs. For example, teachers in self-contained classrooms may have had fewer opportunities to collaborate with general education teachers than did teachers in inclusive settings. With fewer collaboration opportunities, those who taught in self-contained classrooms might have been uncertain of their school faculty’s collective ability to serve CLD students with disabilities. Therefore, educational settings can be considered a mediating factor influencing perceived CTE. Even though CTE was a statistically significant factor in predicting CRTSE beliefs, such mediating effects should be taken into consideration when explaining this relationship. Further research is needed to more fully understand these relationships.

Because CLD students with disabilities receive services from other faculty in inclusive settings (Ford et al., 2014), the weak association between CRTOE and CTE may reflect these participating special education teachers’ uncertainty about the awareness/understanding among their colleagues of the potentially positive impact of CRT practices on CLD students’ performance. Because CTE scale items tap into participants’ perceptions about the faculty’s teaching efficacy, their evaluation of the outcomes of CRT practices may have been influenced by consideration of instruction provided by all teachers collectively. The greater variability in responses of CRTOE and CTE may also reflect variances in the nature and depth of interaction between special education teachers and other faculty, which could have further contributed to the weak association between two scales. These hypotheses are important to investigate in future research.

Limitations

This study yields some limitations: First, participants were purposefully selected from three urban districts in Texas. Their demographic characteristics may not be representative of special education teachers in other states. Thus, the findings do not generalize to other urban areas in the United States. Second, this study employed a survey approach, and nonresponse bias may be another limitation. Those who chose to participate (n = 344) may represent a distinct population with characteristics that were different from the whole population in three districts. Third, the interpretation of results was mainly based on teachers’ self-reports. We could not rule out the possibility that participants did not respond correctly to the questions because survey items involved teachers’ self-evaluation and evaluation of their colleague. In addition, although teachers were confident about their CRT practices, we could not determine whether these teachers were actually successful with CLD with disabilities.

Implications and Future Direction

Although the findings of this preliminary study were not conclusive, the findings expand on the construct of CTE and CRT efficacy, and may suggest the need for more teacher development. The results revealed that participants felt confident about their own skills but were uncertain about external factors (e.g., home/community environment and their school faculty). Teacher educators should consider how to strengthen their teacher education programs with specific attention to building upon students’ diverse backgrounds and life experiences. To better serve CLD students with disabilities in inclusive settings, school districts might need to consider how to provide continuous professional development that helps a teacher with evidence pertaining to their abilities so as to execute CRT practices.

Given the information in this preliminarily study, the findings serve to raise a series of questions for future research. This study focused only on special education teachers evaluating their colleagues’ abilities to serve CLD students with disabilities. Future studies should also examine the CTE of other school staff, and determine whether there are any differences in CTE when predicting CRT efficacy beliefs. In addition, only limited research on CTE has been done on students with disabilities, not to mention on students with disabilities from CLD backgrounds. Based on the results of this study, there seems to be a potential interactive effect involving disability and difference for predicting CTE beliefs. Studies are necessary to further examine how such a potential interaction effect influences CTE within the entire school. Finally, the results of this study only represent inservice special education teachers from three urban school districts in the Southwest. As a result, there is a need for additional research to establish the suitability of the instrument used in this study for use with all special education teachers in the United States.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Szu-Yin Chu

Author Biographies

Szu-Yin Chu is an associate professor at the National Tsing Hua University. Her current research interests are early intervention, family support and partnership, school readiness and transition, and culturally responsive teaching efficacy.

Shernaz B. García is an associate professor Emeritus in Multicultural and Bilingual Special Education, Department of Special Education, at the University of Texas at Austin. Her scholarship and teaching have focused on cultural influences on teaching and learning, factors contributing to educational risk for students from non-dominant sociocultural and linguistic communities, and teacher and leadership preparation.

References

Accardo

A. L.

Finnegan

E. G.

Gulkus

S. P.

Papay

C. K.

(2017). Teaching reading comprehension to learners with autism spectrum disorders: Predictors of teacher self-efficacy and outcome expectancy. Psychology in the Schools, 54, 309-323.

Armor

Conroy-Osequeara

Cox

King

McDonnell

Pascal

Zellman

(1976). Analysis of the school preferred reading programs in selected Los Angeles minority schools (Report No. R-2007-LAUSD). Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

Artiles

A. J.

Ortiz

A. A.

(Eds.). (2002). English language learners with special education needs: Identification, assessment, and instruction. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Artiles

A. J.

Trent

S. C.

Palmer

J. D.

(2004). Culturally diverse students in special education. In Banks

J. A.

Banks

C. A. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 716-735). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Ashton

P. T.

Webb

R. B.

(1986). Making a difference: Teachers’ sense of efficacy and student achievement. New York, NY: Longman.

Avramidis

Norwich

(2002). Teachers’ attitudes toward integration/inclusion: A review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17, 129-147.

Bandura

(1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Bandura

(1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28, 117-118.

Bandura

(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.

10.

Bandura

(2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 75-78.

11.

Bank

Obiakor

Algozzine

(2013). Preparing teachers for urban students who have been labeled as having special needs. Multicultural Learning and Teaching, 8, 155-170.

12.

Borman

Dowling

(2008). Teacher attrition and retention: A meta-analytic and narrative review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 78, 367-409.

13.

Caprara

G. V.

Barbaraneli

Borgoni

Steca

(2003). Efficacy beliefs as determinants of teachers’ job satisfaction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 821-832.

14.

Caprara

G. V.

Barbaranelli

Borgogni

Petitta

Rubinacci

(2003). Teachers’ school staff’s and parents’ efficacy beliefs as determinants of attitudes toward school. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 18, 15-31.

15.

Cartledge

Kourea

(2008). Culturally responsive classroom for culturally diverse students with and at risk for disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74, 351-371.

16.

Chan

D. W.

(2008). General, collective, and domain-specific teacher self-efficacy among Chinese prospective and in-service teachers in Hong Kong. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1057-1069.

17.

Chen

Y.-H.

Chu

S.-Y.

(2014). Exploring the influence of perceived collective teacher efficacy and contextual variables on New Taipei City’s kindergarten teachers serving students in the inclusive setting. Journal of Early Childhood Education, 25, 113-139. (In Chinese)

18.

Chong

W. H.

Klassen

R. M.

Huan

V. S.

Wong

Kates

A. D.

(2010). The relationships among school types, teacher efficacy beliefs, and academic climate: Perspective from Asian middle schools. The Journal of Educational Research, 103, 183-190.

19.

Chu

S.-Y.

(2010). The influence of perceived collective teacher efficacy, and contextual variables on individual teacher efficacy of special education teachers serving students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Texas at Austin.

20.

Chu

S.-Y.

(2011). Perspectives in understanding the schooling and achievement of students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 38, 201-209.

21.

Chu

S.-Y.

(2013). Teacher efficacy beliefs toward serving culturally and linguistically diverse students in special education: Implications of a pilot study. Education and Urban Society, 45, 385-410.

22.

Chu

S.-Y.

García

(2014). Culturally responsive teaching efficacy beliefs of in-service special education teachers. Remedial and Special Education, 35, 218-232.

23.

Cloud

(1993). Language, culture and disability: Implications for instruction and teacher preparation. Teacher Education and Special Education, 16, 60-72.

24.

Cloud

(2002). Culturally and linguistically responsive instructional planning. In Artiles

A. J.

Ortiz

A. A.

(Eds.), English language learners with special education needs: Identification, assessment, and instruction (pp. 107-132). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

25.

Darling-Hammond

(2003). Keeping good teachers: Why it matters, what leaders can do. Educational Leadership, 60, 7-13.

26.

Darling-Hammond

(2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 300-314.

27.

Darling-Hammond

Lieberman

(2012). Teacher education around the world: Changing policies and practices. New York, NY: Routledge.

28.

Foote

C. J.

(2005). The challenge and potential of high-need urban education. The Journal of Negro Education, 74, 371-381.

29.

Ford

B. A.

Stuart

D. H.

Vakil

(2014). Culturally responsive teaching in the 21st century inclusive classroom. Journal of the International Association of Special Education, 15, 56-62.

30.

García

S. B.

Malkin

D. H.

(1993). Toward defining programs and services for culturally and linguistically diverse learners in special education. Teaching Exceptional Children, 26, 52-58.

31.

García

S. B.

Ortiz

A. A.

(2008). A framework for culturally and linguistically responsive design of response-to-intervention models. Multiple Voice for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 11, 24-41.

32.

García

S. B.

Ortiz

A. A.

(2013). Intersectionality as a framework for transformative research in special education. Multiple Voice for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 13, 32-47.

33.

Gay

(2002). Culturally responsive teaching in special education for ethnically diverse students: Setting the stage. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 15, 613-629.

34.

Gay

(2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

35.

Gibson

Dembo

(1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 569-582.

36.

Goddard

R. D.

(2001). Collective efficacy: A neglected construct in the study of schools and student achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 467-476.

37.

Goddard

R. D.

Goddard

(2001). A multilevel analysis of the relationship between teacher and collective efficacy in urban schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 807-818.

38.

Goddard

R. D.

Hoy

W. K.

Hoy

A. W.

(2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 479-508.

39.

Goddard

R. D.

Hoy

W. K.

Hoy

A. W.

(2004). Collective efficacy beliefs: Theoretical developments, empirical evidence, and future directions. Educational Researcher, 33, 3-13.

40.

Guyton

E. M.

Wesche

M. V.

(2005). The Multicultural Efficacy Scale: Development, item selection, and reliability. Multicultural Perspectives, 7, 21-29.

41.

Hartmann

(2012). A scale to measure teachers’ self-efficacy in deaf-blindness education. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 106, 728-738.

42.

Hastings

R. P.

Oakford

(2003). Student teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of children with special needs. Educational Psychology, 23, 87-94.

43.

I. T.

Hau

(2004). Australian and Chinese teacher efficacy: Similarities and differences in personal instruction, discipline, guidance efficacy and beliefs in external determinants. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 313-323.

44.

Hoover

J. J.

Klingner

J. K.

Baca

L. M.

Patton

J. R.

(2008). Methods for teaching culturally and linguistically diverse exceptional learners. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

45.

Hoy

W. K.

Sweetland

Smith

(2002). Toward an organizational model of achievement in high schools: The significance of collective efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 77-93.

46.

Jacob

(2007). The challenges of staffing urban schools with effective teachers. The Future of Children, 17, 129-153.

47.

Klassen

R. M.

Usher

E. L.

Bong

(2010). Teachers’ collective efficacy, job satisfaction, and job stress in cross-cultural context. The Journal of Experimental Education, 78, 464-486.

48.

Knoblauch

Hoy

A. W.

(2008). “Maybe I can teach those kids.” The influence of contextual factors on student teachers’ efficacy beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 166-179.

49.

Ladson-Billings

(1994a). The dream-keepers: Successful teaching for African-American students. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

50.

Ladson-Billings

(1994b). What we can learn from multicultural research. Educational Leadership, 51, 22-26.

51.

Lamorey

Wilcox

(2005). Early intervention practitioners’ self-efficacy: A measure and its applications. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 20, 69-84.

52.

Loera

Nakamoto

Rueda

Y. J.

Beck

Cheery

(2013). Collaboration, communication, and connection: Collegial support and collective efficacy among health science teachers. Career and Technical Education Research, 38, 191-209.

53.

Milner

H. R.

(2002). A case study of an experienced English teacher’s self-efficacy and persistence through “crisis” situations: Theoretical and practical considerations. The High School Journal, 86, 28-35.

54.

Milner

H. R.

Woolfolk

H. A.

(2003). A case study of an African American teacher’s self-efficacy, stereo-type threat, and persistence. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 263-276.

55.

Muller

Singer

Carranza

(2006). A national survey of the educational planning and language instruction practices for students with moderate to severe disabilities who are English Language Learners. Research and Practices for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31, 242-254.

56.

Newman

Wagner

Knokey

A.-M.

Marder

Nagle

Shaver

. . . Schwarting

(2011). The post-high school outcomes of young adults with disabilities up to 8 years after high school: A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NCSER 2011-3005). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved from www.nlts2.org/reports

57.

Oyerinde

S. A.

(2008). A correlational study of teacher efficacy and culturally responsive teaching techniques in four public middle schools (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Missouri–Kansas City.

58.

Paneque

Barbetta

(2006). A study of teacher efficacy of special education teachers of English language learners with disabilities. Bilingual Research Journal, 30, 171-193.

59.

Ross

J. A.

Hogaboam-Gray

Gray

(2004). Prior student achievement, collaborative school processes, and collective teacher efficacy. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3, 163-188.

60.

Santamaría

L. J.

Fletcher

T. V.

Bos

C. S.

(2002). Effective pedagogy for English language learners in inclusive classrooms. In Artiles

A. J.

Ortiz

A. A.

(Eds.), English language learners with special education needs: Identification, assessment, and instruction (pp. 133-157). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

61.

Schechter

Tschannen-Moran

(2006). Teachers’ sense of collective efficacy: An international view. International Journal of Educational Management, 20, 480-489.

62.

Siwatu

K. O.

(2007). Preservice teachers’ culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy and outcome expectancy beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 1086-1101.

63.

Siwatu

K. O.

(2011). Preservice teachers’ culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy forming experiences: A mixed methods study. The Journal of Educational Research, 104, 360-369.

64.

Skaalvik

E. M.

Skaalvik

(2007). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and relations with strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher burnout. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 611-625.

65.

Tableman

(2004). School climate and learning: Best practice brief (No. 31). East Lansing: University-Community Partnerships, Michigan State University.

66.

Tournaki

Podell

D. M.

(2005). The impact of student characteristics and teacher efficacy on teachers’ predictions of student success. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 299-314.

67.

Tschannen-Moran

Barr

(2004). Fostering student achievement: The relationship between collective teacher efficacy and student achievement. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3, 187-207.

68.

Tschannen-Moran

Hoy

A. W.

(2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805.

69.

Tschannen-Moran

Hoy

A. W.

(2007). The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 994-956.

70.

Tucker

C. M.

Porter

Reinke

W. M.

Herman

K. C.

Ivery

P. D.

Mack

C. E.

Jackson

E. S.

(2005). Promoting teacher efficacy for working with culturally diverse students. Preventing School Failure, 50, 29-35.

71.

Turner

J. D.

(2007). Beyond cultural awareness: Prospective teachers’ visions of culturally responsive literacy teaching. Action in Teacher Education, 29, 12-24.

72.

Urton

Wilbert

Hennemann

(2014). Attitudes towards inclusion and self-efficacy of principals and teachers. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 12, 151-168.

73.

Viel-Ruma

Houchins

Jolivette

Benson

(2010). Efficacy beliefs of special educators: The relationships among collective efficacy, teacher self-efficacy, and job satisfaction. Teacher Education and Special Education, 33, 225-233.

74.

Villegas

A. M.

Lucas

(2002). Educating culturally responsive teachers: A coherent approach. New York: State University of New York Press.

75.

Woodcock

Vialle

(2010). Attributional beliefs of students with learning disabilities. The International Journal of Learning, 17, 177-191.

76.

Zambo

(2008). The impact of professional development in mathematic on teachers’ individual and collective efficacy: The stigma of underperforming. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35, 159-168.